Version A: CA for Eternal, Necessary Being
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists exists either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
Note on Version A.*NEW*
(1) Something exists
(2) Whatever exists exists either contingently or necessarily
(3) contingencies must ultimately be grounded in the existence of necessaties
(4) ... derive the attributes of the necessary being here ...
(5) Such a being is appropriately called God.
(6) Therefore God exists.
Version C: Clearke's CA
Clarke’s “Argument from Contingency”:
1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.
5. Therefore, God exists.
version D CA without "Necessity"or "contingency" terminology or "ontological dependence.
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists does so either because it exists eternally or because it's existence is dependent upon some prior cause or set of circumstances.
3.If all things that exist are dependent for their existnece there is no actual explanation of causes
4. Therefore, there exists at least one eternal thing
5. The one eternal thing is the logical explanation for all causally dependent things
6.Any eternally existing cause of all things is worthy of the appellation "God."
7. Therefore God exists.
Tie Breaker:God Cannot be A Brute Fact *New*
Mysterious Stranger who knows Qm Field theory set's Atheist critic straight *NEW*
(aka "Truth of Nothing Emerges")
Quantum Field Theory: No proof of Something From Nothing
Quantum particles do ot prove Universe from Nothing *New*
No Proof Virtual Particles come from Nothing *New*
Causal necessity is a Marker for Broadly Logical Necessity
There seem to be two definitions of N/c: (1) based upon the dependence of an existent upon some prior condition or cause, or (2) N = That which cannot cease or fail to exist, c=that which case cease or fail.I am arguing these are the same one is a maker for the other,
Do Contingencies Require Necessities.
Universe is contingent
No Infinite Causal Regression
Universe is Finite, Atheist Philosopher proves*NEW!*
Quantum Particles Do Not Prove Something from Nothing*NEW!*
Debunking Krause, Universe from Nothing. *NEW!*
More on Clarke's Cosmological Argument
Argument from Eternal Necessary Being
(3)Argument from Primary Cosmological Status
re-worded version of my old cosmological argument
from Doxa list. It's an attempt to get away from the
language of necessity/contingency.
(4)Robert Koons Inductive CA
This inductive version by Dr. Koons of univ. Texas is designed to emphasize the question begging of atheist argument.
"However, there are several weaknesses in the Cosmological Argument, which make it unable to “prove” the existence of God by itself. One is that if it is not possible for a person to conceive of an infinite process of causation, without a beginning, how is it possible for the same individual to conceive of a being that is infinite and without beginning? The idea that causation is not an infinite process is being introduced as a given, without any reasons to show why it could not exist."
[Philip A Pecorino philosophy of religion, web sight--accessed 7/27/16]
Pecorino teaches Queensbourgh CC, CUNY
Answer: It is precisely because God is not a series of causes that we can imagine it, a series of infinite causes would not work because each is a contingency but God is the necessary basis of all thiat is. God is not a clump of matter being worked on by physical laws as is the universe. God is the things that makes the laws.